EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The leader of the far-right British Independence Party, Nigel Farage, became a Roma king for a day. The realization of his worst dreams actually turned out to be a seemingly quite exotic and emotional experience for him in the capital's Fakulteta district, in the company of Tsvetelin Kanchev and a cocktail of songs by the sweet-singing gypsy pavarotti - Jago.
Lyubomir Martinov
Of course, the image of Bulgaria would be quite incomplete without some prominent politician demonstrating martial arts skills to the dear foreign guest. In the absence of the outgoing Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, this task was assigned to Slavi Binev, European Taekwondo champion since '92, and now a PROUD representative of the domestic political elite. After the socially engaged program, it was time for a well-deserved rest in a luxurious restaurant, this time the original rap artist Ustata took care of the musical arrangement.
Looking out the car window at the building of the former party headquarters, Farage made a comment that led me to deep reflections on the cyclical nature of the foreign policy networks in which Bulgaria is entangled: “This is the former communist party building, isn’t it? Now you’ve replaced it with the European Commission building in Brussels. It’s exactly the same!”
After the lifting of the “iron curtain”, we replaced Moscow with Brussels and Washington. When the Russian ambassador, Yuri Isakov, stood up to speak at the lectern in the Alma Mater auditorium two weeks ago, he was asked what he thought about democracy in Bulgaria. His professionalism made him deflect the question, answering that his status as a diplomat did not allow him to comment on the state of democracy in our country. This, he continued, “would be interpreted as interference in the internal affairs of the republic and I cannot be the mustachioed uncle who points fingers at you and criticizes you.”
But another guy with white hair, a goatee and a serious face, wearing a top hat with the colors of the American flag on his head, doesn't even have the courage to lie to us that he intends to comply with international law by keeping his opinion about our domestic politics to himself. The annual report of the US State Department was again full of criticism that a facade democracy operates in Bulgaria, the media serves the interests of the authorities, and the public has no opportunity to tell politicians what it thinks, so it goes out into the streets to protest. It is curious that we are being accused of illegal practices with wiretapping from the state, which has Watergate as its patent.
The hopes that a country like Bulgaria can conduct an independent domestic and foreign policy are in vain. However, there are mechanisms through which a small country can assert firm positions on the world stage through a flexible multi-vector foreign policy. Mobilizing non-force resources in a given direction to achieve a rational goal and using soft power in all its aspects (the means of public diplomacy, exerting cultural influence and skillful use of international meetings and forums as a platform from which to seek support in presenting an idea) are only some of them. To this end, however, it is necessary to use more the expert potential of specialists in geopolitics, international negotiations and public diplomacy than to rely on servile politics, which leads only to a nominal change in the center of power that attracts us.
The article was first published on the Liberum website - LINK
I didn't like this article. I don't understand what it says. Farage with the gypsies -> Isakov at the university -> Why the Americans criticize us.
I agree with 2 things, that we are not getting the most out of the international situation due to servility, and that the EU is increasingly starting to suffocate itself with stupid regulations, although of course it is very far from communism.
What I don't agree with is taking as authoritative the opinion of an extreme populist in England who came to visit Slavi Binev, to take the Jesuit opinion of the Russian ambassador, who responded to you diplomatically, and in interviews and especially live, he behaves here as if he were commanding the parade.
The US, as our ally and leader of NATO, is very right to criticize us, and I don't see how pointing out the problems is interference in our internal affairs. Somehow the opinion has crept into Bulgaria that a diplomat cannot take an opinion on any issue in the country, and if he is an American, then this is direct interference in internal affairs. And what are ambassadors for? Just to attend book launches and national holidays? And I don't see anything strange about the US, a much more legal and principled country than us, criticizing us. If Germany criticizes us for human rights, you would say "it's strange that the state of the Nazis criticizes us", right?
I don't understand the title either, it only reflects a few sentences from the article, but they didn't answer my question: "So what?"
Finally, the article ends with "there are mechanisms." A little specifics wouldn't hurt, but readers should come away with something smarter after reading it. The lack of capacity, especially in the administration, stops us from doing much internationally, but if geopolitical experts make a turn outside the EU-NATO, it's better to do nothing.
Read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the UN Charter and you will understand why a diplomat cannot take a position on any matter of an internal nature in the host country. Focus your attention on Art. 41
Article 41
1. Without prejudice to these privileges and immunities, all persons enjoying the
privileges and immunities, are obliged to respect the laws and regulations of the host country
They are also obliged not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state.
And what are ambassadors for? - to promote friendly relations between the sending and receiving countries and to develop bilateral relations in the field of
economy, culture and science. Also to protect the interests of the sending state and its citizens within the limits allowed by international law. They have other functions, but by looking at the Vienna Convention you will get a more accurate idea.
"there are mechanisms"... here are the specifics:
- Overcoming asymmetry by seeking allies and creating coalitions to overcome the advantages that the power player has
- Rearranging the agenda of international negotiations so that issues that affect the small state go forward
- The strong side in negotiations has the self-confidence that its position is secured by the military-economic potential of the state on whose behalf it negotiates. Accordingly, the weak side can, through better preparation of the negotiators and better arguments, refute the opinion of the other side and even convince it that the proposed agreement is more advantageous for it.
- Relying on international legal norms and customs. If the other party's proposal is in clear violation of international law, you have the right not to accept it and to draw the attention of the international community to the fact that what you are proposing is legally justified and reasonable.
- Having a good BATNA (Best alternative to a negotiated agreement), i.e. even if you don't reach an agreement, your side has a backup option.
As for the title, what do you suggest without it being boring, long, and descriptive?
Instead of a conclusion: This article is not scientific and does not aim to enrich anyone with knowledge. Here are simply three momentary experiences described and how I combine them in my mind. The first is related to that notorious clip from Farage's visit to Bulgaria. The second - N.P. Yuri Isakov was a guest of the Student Diplomatic Club at Sofia University and gave a lecture in the Aula on Russian-Bulgarian bilateral relations and the geopolitics of the Russian Federation. The third - the State Department report on the state of democracy in Bulgaria.